We feed received DMARC reports through Open-Report-Parser and visualize
with Open DMARC Analyzer.
Sometimes the ingestion step fails, because we receive aggregate DMARC
reports with invalid contents. Particularly from senders that seem to
have just started sending DMARC reports.
RFC 7478 says:
On 7/26/24 12:02, Tobias Herkula via mailop wrote:
> Thanks for the Hint, we will fix the mime-part stuff, the empty mail-from is
> on purpose, it's fire and forget
Thanks, Tobias
I've received replies to my online form submissions to GMX suggesting my
similar comments have been passed on to the
On 2/16/21 1:06 AM, Byron Lunz via mailop wrote:
> Support form is still broken.
>
> [...]
>
> https://support.microsoft.com/supportrequestform/8ad563e3-288e-2a61-8122-3ba03d6b8d75
I managed to submit a support request last week, however the support
form itself, and the response I got was quite br
On 6/1/21 10:04 AM, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
> Am 28.05.21 um 15:22 schrieb Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop:
>> Am 28.05.21 um 13:47 schrieb Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop:
>>> Anyone from Microsoft/Outlook available to look into the matter?
>> Seems everything is ok now - either someone l
On 8/5/21 4:57 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> Four copies? That's odd. If you give me the message-id and date for one
> of those, I can have someone take a look. Last I knew, the job that
> send reports has some redundancy, but there's supposed to be a final step
> which compares whether a
On 8/10/21 11:10 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> Dnia 10.08.2021 o godz. 10:37:17 Daniel K. via mailop pisze:
>>
>> Since there does not seem to be any public takers on this, here are some
>> details from the 3 duplicate emails I received today.
>
> I have alre
On 8/24/21 11:04 PM, Matt Corallo via mailop wrote:
> presumably the replies are going into a spam box somewhere like almost
> all other mail to outlook from tiny-volume senders.
I think you're spot on, as this was my experience as well.
When I sent the exact same response from another unrelated
On 5/2/23 14:34, Abuse Department - Advision via mailop wrote:
> I'm starting to think that this is not a malicious activity but some
> kind of anonymization/url checking action from some Microsoft or anti
> Malware system.
>
> Those are some example of the encoded parameters
>
> [...]
>
> uggcf
Sending it here, since postmas...@mimecast.com does not accept mail from
me; I'm not on the allowed-list. I hope someone from Mimecast can look
at this, or forward it to the correct place.
Do not hesitate to contact me directly if you need more info.
First, thank you for changing to send gzipped
On 4/14/25 15:02, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> Anyone dealt/dealing with them in getting IPs unblocked ?
>
> It seems they have a new internal regulation where they want the sending
> domain to be explicitly linked to the actual owner that sends the
> e-mails. Which makes sense in theory but ther
On 3/4/25 20:34, postfix--- via mailop wrote:
> do I understand correctly that only ONE SPF entry is valid per domain or
> subdomain, and that multiple entries such as the ones below are wrong?
>
> "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
> "v=spf1 include:sendgrid.net include:spf.mandrillapp.com ?a
11 matches
Mail list logo
